Increasingly in law enforcement it is necessary to collect biological samples as evidence of a crime or for use as identifying information of a particular human as is the case of DNA collection from suspects. In the collection of biological specimens, it is necessary to associate information about the subject with the specimen at the time of collection as there is no manner for identifying a biological specimen by simple inspection. Therefore, a useful form of evidence collection device for use with biological specimens will contain, at least, a suspect information portion for recording subject information data thereon.
The use of biological specimens as evidence further requires that the biological specimen be securely associated with the identifying information so as to assure that after collection of the specimen, the collection paper or absorbent cannot be intentionally or inadvertently switched to a different collection paper. At a minimum, a proper evidence collection device or holder should easily and clearly show that tampering was attempted either by damage to delicate indicia on the device or by overt damage to a strongly secured device. It is further beneficial if the evidence collection device can accommodate additional forms of evidence such as the application and storage of finger prints on the evidence holder.
A particular issue in the collection of the biological sample is that the sample collection is often taken from a living, uncooperative person. Often the sample is to be taken from the mouth of the suspect where a saliva or DNA specimen is needed. In this instance, the collection absorbent used with be attached to a handle or a stick. Once the specimen is on the absorbent, the handle is no longer needed, a present complicating factor in specimen storage and analysis due to the extra bulk and size.
The foregoing issues relate, generally, to a process referred to as evidence “chain of custody.” “Chain of custody” encompasses the procedures and documentation used to maintain and demonstrate the chronological history of the evidence. Documentation should include, for example, name or initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently having custody of it, dates the items were collected or transferred, agency and case number, victim's or suspect's name, and a brief description of the item. In biological samples, the principles of evidence or sample identification involved in maintaining proper “chain of custody” are especially critical as a fluid or cellular biological sample, once collected onto an absorbent presents no distinguishing characteristics. This lack of visual characteristics foils any attempt to properly identify such a biological fluid or cellular sample once it has become separated from its identifying information.
Another problem or issue presented in the analysis of biological specimens is the need to extract or transfer the collected sample from the original collection absorbent and onto an alternate medium to permit analysis or testing of the specimen using the analysis equipment that is available in the selected laboratory. Often it is necessary to separate the collection absorbent from its originally obtained identifying information that is directly associated with the original collection absorbent. This separation of specimen from identifying information can lead to mistakes in associating the specimen with the correct subject or suspect or can lead to the “chain of custody” being open to question in court and a failure of proof of a crime. Sample misidentification is a major source of error both in laboratory analysis and in substantiating criminal evidence.
An additional issue associated with the collection of the biological sample is the need to test or analyze the sample for comparison purposes with other specimens. The sample analysis must be conducted using preexisting instrumentation which is not amenable to maintaining the “chain of custody” of a biological specimen absorbent. For example, in automatic sample testing devices originally designed for the insurance testing industry, the standards of assuring the association of a specimen with its identifying information is not as rigorous as is required for evidence “chain of custody.”
Therefore, it would be a benefit if a biological sample holder and storage device were available which securely associated the biological specimen absorbent with the subject identifying information and which permitted removal of any handle portion attached to the collection absorbent and which was tamper proof or tamper evident and which provided ease of use for the collection law enforcement officer while in the field.